Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[Valmy]

Berkut is right.  The left, in US as a whole, is unambiguously in the right on about 80% of the issues, but political correctness or whatever you choose to call it is their biggest failing.  There is definitely a climate where a lot of true things cannot be said in polite company, and should one commit a faux pas and say them anyway, the cultured people are supposed to counter with a specious argument.

There is no way to moderate the nutballs. Leftist nutballs are so VERY RIGHTEOUS that they cannot really be reasoned with. They just lash out at whomever. It gets pretty ridiculous. I remember I used to read this Feminist page and at one point one of the feminists made a cutsy remark about how she was enjoying her runs in the park much better these days since it was spring and the hot guys were out in their running shorts or something. Just a throw-away whatever. And it was amazing the tidal wave of righteous rage that descended upon her as a horrible sexual objectifying monster.

I wish I could say that was unusual. So once somebody starts banging the 'this is equivalent to violence' drum it just gets nuts.

Now I see things like this on the right, especially with the Trump movement going on, but it sure seems like the left struggles with it more. The more radical you are the more legitimacy you seem to have in the conversation.

[Ed Anger]

I don't think I ever read my copy of the Turner Diaries. I'm too busy highlighting my copy of Battlefield Earth.

[grumbler]

There are plenty of examples outside that one though.

...
Obama's categorical refusal to admit that religion has anything to do with Islamic terrorism.

I missed this one.  When did he do that?

[Admiral Yi]

Berkut is right.  The left, in US as a whole, is unambiguously in the right on about 80% of the issues, but political correctness or whatever you choose to call it is their biggest failing.  There is definitely a climate where a lot of true things cannot be said in polite company, and should one commit a faux pas and say them anyway, the cultured people are supposed to counter with a specious argument.

How do you distinguish between positions that you personally agree with and those that are unambiguously right?

[grumbler]

Berkut is right.  The left, in US as a whole, is unambiguously in the right on about 80% of the issues, but political correctness or whatever you choose to call it is their biggest failing.  There is definitely a climate where a lot of true things cannot be said in polite company, and should one commit a faux pas and say them anyway, the cultured people are supposed to counter with a specious argument.

How do you distinguish between positions that you personally agree with and those that are unambiguously right?

Why would he suddenly start doing that? 

[11B4V]

I don't think I ever read my copy of the Turner Diaries. I'm too busy highlighting my copy of Battlefield Earth.

Spoiler

Whites good, darkies and Jews bad.

[Ed Anger]

I don't think I ever read my copy of the Turner Diaries. I'm too busy highlighting my copy of Battlefield Earth.

Spoiler

Whites good, darkies and Jews bad.

DAMMIT. MIGHT AS WELL THROW IT IN THE TRASH

[DGuller]

Berkut is right.  The left, in US as a whole, is unambiguously in the right on about 80% of the issues, but political correctness or whatever you choose to call it is their biggest failing.  There is definitely a climate where a lot of true things cannot be said in polite company, and should one commit a faux pas and say them anyway, the cultured people are supposed to counter with a specious argument.

How do you distinguish between positions that you personally agree with and those that are unambiguously right?

By using using logical reasoning.  Ask yourself what would be a good outcome for society, and then reason things out as to what policy would bring this to fruition.  Given that most Americans at least claim to have the same idea of what good and bad outcomes are, it's not surprising that as long as reason is followed and facts are properly collected and analyzed, a similar set of conclusions would be arrived upon.

Now, is it possible that I'm not perceiving reality in a reasonable way, and that neither my facts nor my reasoning are in any way sound?  Of course.  No one is guaranteed sanity.  Any one of us can be too insane to be aware of our insanity.  But we all have to take a leap of faith that we're not insane in order to function.

[11B4V]

I don't think I ever read my copy of the Turner Diaries. I'm too busy highlighting my copy of Battlefield Earth.

Spoiler

Whites good, darkies and Jews bad.

DAMMIT. MIGHT AS WELL THROW IT IN THE TRASH

That's what you get for spoiling my Chickamauga book.

[LaCroix]

By using using logical reasoning.  Ask yourself what would be a good outcome for society, and then reason things out as to what policy would bring this to fruition.  Given that most Americans at least claim to have the same idea of what good and bad outcomes are, it's not surprising that as long as reason is followed and facts are properly collected and analyzed, a similar set of conclusions would be arrived upon.

Now, is it possible that I'm not perceiving reality in a reasonable way, and that neither my facts nor my reasoning are in any way sound?  Of course.  No one is guaranteed sanity.  Any one of us can be too insane to be aware of our insanity.  But we all have to take a leap of faith that we're not insane in order to function.

another possibility is you're not considering all the factors in analyzing whatever policy

[Admiral Yi]

By using using logical reasoning.  Ask yourself what would be a good outcome for society, and then reason things out as to what policy would bring this to fruition.  Given that most Americans at least claim to have the same idea of what good and bad outcomes are, it's not surprising that as long as reason is followed and facts are properly collected and analyzed, a similar set of conclusions would be arrived upon.

Now, is it possible that I'm not perceiving reality in a reasonable way, and that neither my facts nor my reasoning are in any way sound?  Of course.  No one is guaranteed sanity.  Any one of us can be too insane to be aware of our insanity.  But we all have to take a leap of faith that we're not insane in order to function.

I infer by the way you didn't answer my question that in your mind your preferences and unambiguous good are the same thing.

I, and I expect most people, would take exception to your premise that most Americans agree on what constitutes good and bad outcomes.

I also have problems with the notion that analysis of policy options (once these widely agreed goals have been established) then yields choices that are unambiguously right.  Or perhaps unambiguously doesn't mean what I think it means?

[Berkut]

But no matter - keep pretending like everything is fine, and the left doesn't need to change their message or presentation. And we will see more Donald Trumps.

I don't think very many people are pretending everything is fine at this point.

Plenty of people are pretending like the problem is just racist right wingers, and there is no problem with the left, or how it is perceived by moderates and the right, at all.

And again, I think that is actually *mostly* true - I don't hang a majority of the blame on the left. But it only takes a small shift to see horrendous outcomes - something like a couple hundred thousand votes in a couple states.

But Trump got a decent chunk of votes from people who voted for Obama last time. Presumably THOSE people are not racists.

The left has to figure out how to start appealing to more than just the died in the whool left wing "elitists". And I very much consider myself one of those elitists.

[DGuller]

I infer by the way you didn't answer my question that in your mind your preferences and unambiguous good are the same thing.

Preferences do not factor into this.  You can be in the right only on issues where there can be right answers.  How do you improve health outcomes most effectively and efficiently is a question with the right answer, even if it may not be easy to get to.  Abortion, not so much.

I also have problems with the notion that analysis of policy options (once these widely agreed goals have been established) then yields choices that are unambiguously right.  Or perhaps unambiguously doesn't mean what I think it means?

Okay, I'll cop to using stronger language than is either warranted or even reflective of my opinion.  You can never truly be certain about complicated issues, but you can be reasonably certain about a lot of them in politics.  If you're worried about rising income inequality, giving Republicans essentially unchecked power is a pretty dumb thing to do with high level of certainty.

[Berkut]

You know, I don't really get the objection to someone saying they think they are right about things, even all things.

I think I am right about all of my views. Isn't that kind of self evident? DGuller identifies himself strongly as a lefty, and he says lefties are right about 80% of the topics. How does that come as a surprise? Of course I think I am right about everything I have an opinion on, because if I decided I was wrong on any of the items, my opinion would change to align with what I think is right.

I would find it odd if he said he was comfortable calling himself a strong left winger, but he only thought lefties were right 50% of the time. That would make no sense. He is a strong lefty BECAUSE he thinks they are mostly right about the bulk of the issues.

[LaCroix]

the problem when you think you're so right on something is it can lead to you unintentionally overlooking or misinterpreting things that should change your views